Nevada Supreme Court Blocks Jill Stein from November Ballot

Nevada’s Supreme Court has blocked Green Party candidate Jill Stein from the November ballot, sparking debate over voter choice and ballot access rules.

At a Glance

Nevada Supreme Court ruled 5-2 to remove Green Party from ballot
Over 15,000 signatures invalidated due to incorrect affidavit language
Green Party used form recommended by Secretary of State’s office
Jill Stein criticizes decision as “anti-democratic”
Green Party appealing to U.S. Supreme Court

Court Rules Against Green Party

In a 5-2 decision, the Nevada Supreme Court has ruled that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein will not appear on the state’s November ballot. The court invalidated over 15,000 signatures on the Green Party’s petition due to the use of incorrect affidavit language, despite the party submitting nearly 29,500 signatures – almost triple the required minimum.

The ruling centered on the Green Party’s use of an affidavit for “initiative and referendum petitions” instead of one for “minor party ballot access.” Notably, the affidavit language used was recommended by the Nevada Secretary of State’s office. However, the court determined that this reliance on the sample ballot petition from the secretary could not excuse the incorrect language.

Stein Criticizes Decision

Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, has strongly criticized the court’s decision. She views it as an attack on democracy and voter choice in Nevada.

“This is extremely anti-democratic. This is a slap in the face to the voters of Nevada, who deserve choices. That’s what democracy is supposed to be about, and this is another case of the anti-democratic party if it were labeled correctly, slapping down voters,” said Green Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein.

Stein has accused the Democratic Party of attempting to eliminate competition in multiple states, pointing to a pattern of legal challenges against third-party candidates.

"Stein, Stein, Stein?"

Said about Jill in Ben's voice.

Looks like the Deep Dem State kept Jill off the ballot in NV. https://t.co/iHsFXqE2JU

— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) September 6, 2024

Democratic Party Response

The Nevada Democratic Party, which brought the challenge against the Green Party, has praised the court’s decision. They argue that it ensures all parties follow the same rules for ballot access.

“We applaud the Nevada State Supreme Court’s decision that the Green Party failed to meet state law. This ruling is a victory for Nevada voters and ensures that the Green Party plays by the same rules as other campaigns,” said Nevada State Democratic Party Executive Director Hilary Barrett.

Reports indicate that the Democratic Party had prepared a team of lawyers and communications specialists to counter potential spoiler candidates, reflecting the high stakes of the upcoming election.

Legal Implications and Next Steps

The court’s decision has raised questions about ballot access laws and the responsibilities of state offices in providing accurate information to candidates. Two dissenting justices, Douglas Herndon and Kristina Pickering, cited an error by the Secretary of State’s office in directing the Green Party to use the incorrect form.

This is what the Democrats did to @RobertKennedyJr and now Jill Stein. What is wrong with this country?
This is not democracy. This is the opposite of Democracy. Jill, I send you my love and compassion. This is so not cool. https://t.co/3YPIaIep8e

— Karen Lorre (@KarenLorre) September 8, 2024

“I am deeply concerned that our decision today excuses an egregious error by the Secretary of State’s office that will result in a significant injustice and I am convinced that, under the circumstances presented in regard to that error, invalidating the signatures violates the Green Party’s substantive due process rights,” the dissenting opinion said.

The Green Party is now appealing the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. As it stands, the only minor party candidate on Nevada’s general election ballot is Libertarian Chase Oliver. This development underscores the ongoing challenges faced by third-party candidates in securing ballot access and offering voters alternative choices in American elections.